JASKN

A little weird, Mr. Standard, but I think I like it.

I don't find her attractive, nor very feminine. Her form is distorted, her hair scraggly, and her body is striking an unpleasant pose. Like she's about to gorge out my intestines. I also don't like her face. Mainly I think the problems are with the execution of her physical form, or lack thereof. She isn't very realistic. Kiera Knightly has a pretty face, but her figure is very boyish, or skeletal. She is a good actress, though, especially for her age.

Perhaps some of the threads on sexuality would help you get the proof that you need. Since there is no scientific proof a la a chemical reaction displayed before your eyes or a bat breaking glass or something to that regard, at this point the only proof concerning the nature of sex is based off of experience and what we already know about psychology and the human mind. As far as I can figure, an animal is different to a person's psychology than your average plastic or rubber sex toy, although they both have equal rights, because it is alive. That is a big leap from a rock if you are going to use it sexually. Inspector, would you disagree? Instead of writing a lengthy explanation, if you do not agree, what do you believe the major difference to be, or the biggest harm to a person's mind?

Yes, I agree. I apologize Vladimir, I did not mean to imply that you personally are only looking for a warm orifice, and RationalBiker's rephrasing is better stated for what I wanted to know.

I will then put it this way: torture of and sex with animals is unhealthy for an individual in normal circumstances for a myriad of psychological reasons, and thus immoral. As DavidOdden pointed out, self-destruction is a form of immorality. What, other than a reflection of values, would you say sex should be? To be perfectly crude, are you just looking for a warm orifice?

I don't see how it follows that I'm providing excuses for giving up on my dreams (!) from assuming that a person walking in a city most likely has an agenda they would rather not have interrupted.

I don't think you can seriously assert that torturing or having sex with animals is healthy for a "normal" human. Why don't you list a couple examples where doing both would leave the human better off? There is a huge difference between practicing a kind of "sexuality" with an animal and practicing sexuality with another human. I can't think of any example where it would be psychologically healthy for a human to (torture or) have sex with an animal, even if you were the last human on earth.

One could not possibly judge accurately based on a passing look in the eyes if the man or woman actually lived up to his dreams. And nobody would interrupt the schedule of an entire busload of people, hit the ground running and begin talking to a beautiful stranger who most likely also has an agenda of his or her own, because it would probably turn out to be a rude, presumptuous gesture, and a big waste of time. "Oh, you have to go? Uh... ok. But your eyes, they're so dreamy! Oh, sure, uh yeah no problem. Ok well, bye." Now you're stuck on the side of the road without a ride.

Well, I would begin my argument by pointing out that without farmers, factories, philosophers, and other such mega time-savers, businesses like Splashin' Safari would be obsolete. And without Microsoft, many businesses now would just not exist. But as I said, I haven't developed my thoughts much on this subject, so that's why I would like SoftwareNerd or anyone else who has to articulate what they have concluded. And I don't think your notion that any business which generates wealth by every party's mutual consent is essential. I mean, a cake factory is certainly not essential... I think.

Has anyone seen this movie, and if so would you please share your opinion?

Actually, yes, that's what I thought. Before I start spouting off some poorly-developed justification for such a belief, for my benefit could you please explain why you think theme parks are as valuable as computer companies, energy companies, medical researchers, steel factories, and other such "essential" businesses? Concerning development companies, I don't know much, so right now I can't comment on that type of business. (Btw, Astroworld is a funny name.)

Yeah, that's what I was insinuating. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if most of those businesses didn't exist.

A criticism against Ayn Rand and her capitalistic utopia that I once read cited the huge lack of businessmen to live by her views, or give her any sort of credit. (I may or may not have read this on Nathanial Branden's site, in his anti-Rand essay). I must admit, the businessmen proponents in the story are not exactly the cream of the crop.

Well, why should sex be a celebration of one's values?

Sophia: Well of course nothing is stopping you from doing so. My point is that there is nothing inherently immoral about doing so. Maarten: But sex is an end in itself. You are not investing in anything when you engage in sex, unless you are already in a romantic relationship. Then you are investing in the well being of that relationship. And what if someone is simply not looking to be in a romantic relationship, so the "better" alternative isn't even in the equation? What makes you think casual sex will hinder someone from searching for a romantic partner, if he so wishes? Also, if he doesn't view casual sex as immoral, why would he care to engage in a romantic relationship with someone who has such a problem with it enough to be a hindrance to the relationship? I disagree. It does not follow that enjoying casual sex will devalue sex in a romantic relationship. That may be so, but what about those times when one is not in a romantic relationship? Lathanar: It's a rational value if someone weighs the variables and decides the sex is in his favor. What about roller-coasters? I love them solely for the sake of their effect on my senses, and I ride them because I think they are safe enough to trust my life to.

Inspector, as with hunterrose, I also do not think you have provided any evidence why, with two willing participants, casual sex is immoral. You can proclaim that for most people, it appears that sex in a mutually loving relationship is better than casual sex, for a myriad of good reasons, but to deem the latter immoral, I don't buy it. Morality is based off of reality, right? Well, I observe sex in a loving, romantic relationship as fantastic, on a different level than sex outside of such a relationship. But, I also observe the more casual sex, in certain circumstances, to be of value to certain people also. I have a hard time imagining casual sex to be of value, since in my experience, I have never enjoyed it. But I know enough people who enjoy themselves very much engaging in that kind of sex. If they have weighed all of the elements, if they enjoy casual sex for rational reasons, where is the basis of your condemnation? By the way, I reread your previous quotes of Rand, and nowhere is it stated why sex must be so important. She places it in high moral esteem, but I see no reason why it must be held in such high esteem.

Well, you love them insofar as they can perform the act and provide their body. I understand that a lot of people have a really good time having sex with people they otherwise know or care to know almost nothing about, personality-wise. What's wrong with that? (...If) Nobody pretends to love anything beyond the sex, and everyone has a good time. Isn't the argument against this kind of sex that it is psychologically damaging? So if it's not, what's wrong with it?

I'm sorry, I inferred incorrectly from some of your posts.

Yes, but why not sex?

There's something to be said for elegance, Olex, in response to a situation like this. Maybe you could take a hint from JMeganSnow.

"Act beautifully" is a broad criterion which would include those things you mentioned, and Angelina Jolie is certainly capable of delivering. Cate Blanchett would also be a good pick; I think she is a fantastic actress who is better at creating an original character than Jolie. Really, I could watch her forever. But I still stand by Jolie as a good choice for Dagny.

Wow, I don't know how I missed this. Thanks for finding it for me, SoftwareNerd.

[Mod's note: Merged with earlier, related, thread. - sN] I am almost sure I have read this topic discussed at some length by Ayn Rand in one of her essays, but I can't remember which essay, or even which book. Does anyone know? I didn't have success with the search feature. If I am mistaken and she only mentions it (like I found on the ARI site) but doesn't go into detail, is anyone able and willing to give me an overview on why the end does not justify the means? I appreciate it.

How do you mean, exactly? It would be intellectually too advanced, or the animation would be too difficult? The latter is certainly out of the question (have you seen Final Fantasy? Or... any animated movie in the last five years?). And I don't understand your position as the former, either. One, there are plenty of philosophical animated movies out there, and I enthusiastically endorse the Ghost in the Shell movies and series, for example, which Sherry mentioned. Besides that, if the writers and director know what they are doing, I see no reason why it is more difficult to get a message or story across in an animated movie than a live-action movie.

Whatever, that was hilarious!